What's The Melting Point For A Snowball?

The best team should always win; the hottest team, however, often wins. In a contest between the best team and the hottest team in a post-conference match up, I'll often take the hottest team.

Likewise, the current bowl system is supposedly broken due to its merocratic exclusivity; a collegiate football playoff system would presumably loosen those confines and produce a more democratic champion. In a contest between the occasionally controversial #1 and the unpredictability of a playoff system, I'll take my chances with the current BCS model.

It's ridiculously silly to assume the post-season model NCAA basketball employs will produce the best possible result in football. There's a reason it's called March Madness. The image that eternally represents the unpredictable electricity of this one-and-done tournament is Jimmy V running around Albuquerque looking for somebody to hug.

On the other side of the extreme, the College World Series is more methodical and conservative in its Best of 7 approach; the parity in baseball is much closer than in basketball and football and this serves its own interests. Obviously, employing this model in football is in nobody's interest.

The latest idea being run up the flag pole is the Plus One. Many coaches and university presidents may salute, but not enough to innoculate themselves from the innevitable firestorm to come from the coach of the first #5 team under this system.

I like the current BCS system. That being said, it's the worst way collegiate football has chosen to crown a champion, except for all others.

But were I to favor a playoff system, I'd propose a 12 team, 11 game system with the top 4 seeds receiving a first round bye.

My suppositions:

1. There is more parity in college basketball and baseball than in college football. Therefore, there should be fewer tournament games to retain spectator attention and sponsorship participation.

2. Playoff bowl sites will increase regional enthusiasm for the fans, local economic figures for the host cities, recruiting channels for the teams, and overall profits for the conferences.

3. The four elite Bowls (Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, and Orange) should keep their status; Second-tier bowls (Holiday, Cotton, Gator, and Capital One) should be included in the rota.

[By the way, check out the plans for the new Arlington stadium; that thing's gonna be incredible. The way I see it, Dallas had their chance to upgrade the Cotton Bowl and didn't. Innovative cities with innovative legislators are going to find a way to compete.]

It gives the top dozen teams a chance and takes away their argument of not being considered for a championship; with a system like this over the last three seasons, 13.9% of the play-off participants would have come from non-BCS Conferences*. It simultaneously rewards the top four teams for winning throughout their respective seasons (and presumeably winning their conference championship) but still makes them win three games to lift the Sears trophy.

It would also eliminate the six or seven week lay-off from a team's final conference game to their only bowl game.

The winners? Non-BCS conferences, mid-tier bowl cities, fans, Vegas and other independent practitioners, sports commentators, and corporate sponsors.

The losers? Top-tier conferences risking the importance (read, revenue) of a conference championship game and the historical bowl tie-in. Hence, the snowball's chance.

And my wife who would have to tolerate a month-long play-off system instead of the current two week get-em-all-over-with-at-once inundation.



* I included the Independents in the list of non-BCS conferences. Incidentally, Notre Dame could be the factor that pushes me over the side of play-off system; no team with nine consecutive bowl losses should be invited back over and over again to a premier bowl just because they have "Notre Dame" on their jerseys.